What's more important, freedom of speech or the feelings or certain individuals/group

[PurpleTree]

Freedom of expression, right to criticise religion, leaders etc. make fun of them, talk about everything?

Or the feelings of certain individuals who feel discriminated against?

For example right now there's a huge issue in France after those released comics and a teacher got beheaded.

Then the french president said "we'll always allow these comics, it's freedom of expression/speech and important for our society"

Now some muslim countries started boycotting France and it just looks like more and more conflict.

Also interesting though that Erdogan etc. for example don't criticise and boycott China for their "re-education camps" etc.

How can this all be resolved?

[Preety_India]

There is a fine line between hating and freedom of speech. 

If the speech is merely an expression then okay. 

If the speech causes people to justify discriminating against the said group and treat them badly, then that's not exactly freedom of speech but rather freedom to destroy another person/race /culture's humanity. Basically a dehumanizing exercise.

A lot of people like to use freedom of speech as a lid to cover their inner racism. 

 

[No Self]

With only a most basic respect for fellow man, nobody would want to suppress the speech of others, nor would anybody want to use free speech to promote violence.

[commie]

Resolving the issue is quite simple. You'll certainly have noticed that there isn't much explicit pornography on display in France (or elsewhere). Yet it's not banned in most places (even though some laws against it are still on the books here and there). There you go: mostly free speech and most easily-disturbed people aren't riled up for no good reason.

The problem in France is simply that certain centrist or right-wing politicians are playing identity politics, and have been doing so for quite some time. It's not a freedom of speech issue.

1 minute ago, No Self said:

With only a most basic respect for fellow man, nobody would want to suppress the speech of others

That is, until the speech offends you or some powerful group...

I'm into freedom of speech. This gets threads locked in forums (at best). I've met very few others who actually are into freedom of speech.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, commie said:

The problem in France is simply that certain centrist or right-wing politicians are playing identity politics, and have been doing so for quite some time. It's not a freedom of speech issue.

What about the "ghettoisation" in some places/neighbourhoods in France which are mostly Muslim and women can't (or are scared to) wear skirts etc. because of oppression etc. and many Jews fleeing France because of discrimination etc. is that not a problem at all?

 

[No Self]

3 minutes ago, commie said:

That is, until the speech offends you or some powerful group...

Everyone is offended by everything these days. It's not a pathway that can be sustained much further.

My point was that we are trying to solve a root problem of human primitiveness and it never works via suppression. The same reason all of our economic systems have failed. We have never addressed the root problem that people are assholes.

In the social media era, unlimited free speech means being overrun by violent extremists. ISIS turned out to be the first of many. It is hard to argue that nothing should be done to stop them. Perhaps the right balance eventually gets struck through the natural forces of legislation and debate.

[commie]

Violent people can be arrested or otherwise neutralized. We know how it works because terrorist campaigns have been brought to a halt successfully. This is not only much more effective at protecting people from violence than suppressing speech, it's made easier when the relevant communities are comfortable speaking.

6 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

What about the "ghettoisation" in some places/neighbourhoods in France which are mostly Muslim and women can't (or are scared to) wear skirts etc. because of oppression etc. and many Jews fleeing France because of discrimination etc. is that not a problem at all?

What about [insert off-topic far-right conspiracy theory]?

I've had an elected official of the "socialist party" talk this shit (a less crazy version, granted) to me. The very same also thought that Jews working in the WTC were warned before 9/11 somehow.

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, commie said:

What about [insert off-topic far-right conspiracy theory]?

I've had an elected official of the "socialist party" talk this shit (a less crazy version, granted) to me. The very same also thought that Jews working in the WTC were warned before 9/11 somehow.

huh so you say it's just a conspiracy theory? what if it were true though?

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20190213-france-surge-anti-semitism-jews-hate-speech-yellow-vests-far-right

Jews in France get it from the far right and from "extremist" Muslims

Edited October 29, 2020 by PurpleTree

[No Self]

4 minutes ago, commie said:

Violent people can be arrested or otherwise neutralized. We know how it works because terrorist campaigns have been brought to a halt successfully. This is not only much more effective at protecting people from violence than suppressing speech, it's made easier when the relevant communities are comfortable speaking.

Yes, though 60 million people died before Hitler's 'free speech' exercise was neutralized.

[PurpleTree]

another question, what's more important if the values clash, women's rights and freedom or the right and freedom to practice religion?

 

or do we decide case by case?

 

because at some points values are clashing, and if we're not sure which value is more important to us as a society then we'll always be wobbly

[PurpleTree]

^here i'd say women's rights are more important but it's also a bit selfish since i wasn't raised with any religion but by a mother who taught me how important women's rights are etc. 

 

and i'm never saying it's 100% one or the other, these are difficult questions

[Fran11]

There is not one absolutely right perspective on this of course. 

But I feel the line should be drawn according to wether the speech is coming from a genuine non-judgamental place of thoughtfulness, or out of an emotional and phobic reaction.

For example, saying "I think X group/minority/ethnicity/gender is prone to having X trait becouse of..."  in a not judgamental way, although could still be offensive to those people, I wouldn't consider it hate speech nor I think it would be healthy to censor it.

Whereas a speech along the lines of "X group/minority/ethnicity/gender are all a bunch of evil and stupid weirdos and should not existst becouse their presence bothers me" is clearly coming from a place of phobia and hate and drags society down.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Fran11

[PurpleTree]

18 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

There is not one absolutely right perspective on this of course. 

But I feel the line should be drawn according to wether the speech is coming from a genuine non-judgamental place of thoughtfulness, or out of an emotional and phobic reaction.

For example, saying "I think X group/minority/ethnicity/gender is prone to having X trait becouse of..."  in a not judgamental way, although could still be offensive to those people, I wouldn't consider it hate speech nor I think it would be healthy to censor it.

Whereas a speech along the lines of "X group/minority/ethnicity/gender are all a bunch of evil and stupid weirdos and should not existst becouse their presence bothers me" is clearly coming from a place of phobia and hate and drags society down.

 

 

So you think we need exact rules/laws on what's allowed to say/draw etc. and what not? I mean there are laws on slander, defamation etc.

I like your avatar, where's it from?

[Fran11]

40 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

So you think we need exact rules/laws on what's allowed to say/draw etc. and what not?

No, the exact content isn't as important as the way in which it's framed and justified IMO.

It's not the same saying something like "Women generally tend to be more emotional than men becouse of brain chemistry, so they tend to perform better at different jobs than men" than to say "Women are all emotional and irrational nutcases, and should never be allowed to do X job".

The content is somewhat similar, but one comes from a place of genuine non-judgamental analysis, and recognizes it's a limited generalization which doesn't apply in every case. The latter doesn't provide any supporting argument and it's judgamental, hateful and absolutistic.

But yeah drawing an exact line would be extremely diffcult.

40 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I like your avatar, where's it from?

Thanks 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus

Edited October 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Origins]

Freedom of speech is a great bumper sticker for a sucker on the back of a ute driving to America's demise.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Origins

[Gesundheit]

Nothing is more important than any other thing. If you allow freedom of speech, you will offend people, guaranteed. And if you don't, you will suppress people, guaranteed. Either way, some people's emotions will always get hurt, and in turn that harm will eventually become physical violence.

But it goes deeper than just which one is more important. Here (stage Green) we're assuming that the life of every human being is precious and should not be wasted regardless of how toxic and harmful they are to others. So we're favoring human rights of survival against the quality of life of each one individual. We could have instead decided to execute every malicious human being according to a certain standard for the sake of a better society, but that would involve global wars. So in the end it seems like doesn't matter what we do, there's a certain amount of conflict that is always going to happen. Right now we're experiencing it on a prolonged period of time with a few mildly acute episodes every now and then, instead of just one big acute episode that settles all our differences once and for all. So, it will happen eventually. We will get along. But it will take time.

[Origins]

Oh and by the way my pessimistic view in relation to freedom of speech has nothing to do with offence and everything to do with most speech that's bound up by peoples patriotic freedom is burst when put under the lens of truth. Freedom of speech for most is like a little kid running around blowing bubbles from a bubble wand all over the newspapers and social media sites that looks like little innocent bombs you pop in the air but in reality creates disastrous ramifications for cultural progression over the long term. 

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

So in the end it seems like doesn't matter what we do, there's a certain amount of conflict that is always going to happen. Right now we're experiencing it on a prolonged period of time with a few mildly acute episodes every now and then, instead of just one big acute episode that settles all our differences once and for all. So, it will happen eventually. We will get along. But it will take time.

i feel as "societies" we need to think deep and long about what our values actually are, introspection, deep dives, debates etc.

and if one value collides with another one, which value do we value more. even if "nothing is more important than the other thing"

or else things will get real dicey in the "near" future, they already kind of are.

and if we say we value democracy over something else for example, then we can't just support dictatorships around the world and sell them weapons etc.

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

i feel

Yes, you feel.

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

as "societies"

Loved the quote marks.

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

we need to

There's no need to do anything.

..

I'll stop here for the sake of not becoming a cringe, and I'll try to be more serious.

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

and if one value collides with another one, which value do we value more.

 

Collision is not a value to adopt. It is what's actually happening out there in the world due to our inherent differences. If we were all the same, there would be no collision because of the plentiness of resources. If our resources were limited, there would be collision regardless of our differences. So we have two very fundamental problems: resources and differences. Once we're over these issues (by any means), all conflict will be resolved for good. Or at least that's what I think.

[PurpleTree]

50 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Yes, you feel.

Loved the quote marks.

There's no need to do anything.

..

I'll stop here for the sake of not becoming a cringe, and I'll try to be more serious.

it's already cringey though "" 

50 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Once we're over these issues (by any means), all conflict will be resolved for good. Or at least that's what I think.

we won't be over these issues for a long time, so that's not realistic in the near or midterm future.

what said about deciding which values etc. is a short to midterm semi realistic goal.